| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Christchurch 190 |
| Hearing date | 16 Aug 2012 |
| Determination date | 31 August 2012 |
| Member | J Crichton |
| Representation | J Guthrie ; S Anderson |
| Location | Dunedin |
| Parties | Spratt v Clan Construction Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Redundancy - ARREARS OF WAGES - Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent – Authority found respondent ranking of apprentices and decision to consult only with lowest ranked apprentice not unreasonable and unfair process in redundancy context – Found applicant’s redundancy genuine and decision of fair and reasonable employer in circumstances – Found applicant consulted about redundancy and given opportunity to comment – Found overall respondent’s dismissal process procedurally fair – Dismissal justified - ARREARS OF WAGES – Found however applicant’s one week notice of redundancy insufficient and applicant should have been given four weeks’ notice – Found applicant entitled to three weeks’ wages in lieu of notice, parties to determine quantum - Apprentice Carpenter |
| Abstract | Applicant employed as apprentice carpenter. Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent. Parties’ employment agreement (“EA”) stated applicant employed for fixed term of one year but also that employment would continue until terminated by party. EA did not include redundancy provision. Applicant made redundant five months after employment commenced. Respondent claimed business very slow during year applicant employed. Respondent commenced restructure. Applicant only employee made redundant but wider restructure not required as number of staff resigned after applicant made redundant. Applicant claimed respondent should have considered all apprentices before deciding which position would be made redundant. Applicant claimed made redundant as requested pay increase. Respondent claimed entitled to rank apprentices, conclude applicant less skilled than others and disestablish applicant’s position. Respondent claimed common practice to rank apprentices and apprentices assessed regularly therefore assessment not initiated solely as part of restructure. Applicant claimed redundancy predetermined and given inadequate notice of redundancy.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: No evidence applicant selected for redundancy as sought pay increase. Respondent’s ranking of employee within respondent’s management prerogative. Respondent ranking of apprentices and decision to consult only with lowest ranked apprentice not unreasonable or unfair process in redundancy context. Applicant’s redundancy genuine and decision of fair and reasonable employer in circumstances. Applicant consulted about redundancy and given opportunity to comment. Overall respondent’s dismissal process procedurally fair. Applicant failed to suggest alternatives to respondent’s redundancy proposal at meeting. Dismissal justified.;ARREARS OF WAGES: Applicant’s one week notice of redundancy insufficient and applicant should have been given four weeks’ notice. Applicant entitled to three weeks’ wages in lieu of notice, parties to determine quantum. |
| Result | Application dismissed (unjustified dismissal) ; Arrears of wages (parties to determine quantum) ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | Angus v Ports of Auckland Ltd (2011) 9 NZELC 94,015;Vice-Chancellor of Massey University v Wrigley (2011) 9 NZELC 93,782 |
| Number of Pages | 11 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Christchurch_190.pdf [pdf 127 KB] |